I didn't make any special case for Thief, just briefly highlighted what some people feel about Thief versus the traditional representations of gameplay surrounding rogues in cRPGs. That's the full extent of the statement. But feel free to be a git and take it out of context to suggest it's a nonsensical tautology, and that more will follow.
I misunderstood the context. However, I still think the question is still nonsensical. It still seems to imply a comparison between Thief and RPG games, whether you are the one doing it or you are giving credit to the comparison made by others.
In general, my main contention in this article is the introduction. It's little more than a rant with superfluous language with the majority of topics it addresses being, at best, tangential to the main topic of the article. Reading through it I find it no wonder that someone would miss the point as you so readily expect many to do. As the point is difficult to decipher between the lambasting of buzz phrases (even though you ironicly use them yourself in the main article), journalists, and fellow gamers.
Largely though, I think I see the overall point of the article. However, the problem you seem to put forth is not one that I agree exists nor does it seem there is a case made for its existence. There is no argument put forth that this will somehow improve the genre in a fashion that its players find intrinsically desireable over the other conventions. In essence, your "solution" appears to be little more than just another option.
I think you are arguing it from the wrong angle. You speak too much of shoulds, both on what you think should be done and as claims others make that you are contesting. When instead you should (lol) be speaking of the benefits as different rules, an expansion of the effects of past action upon present interaction, and mechanics that enable you to more adequately define behavior and personality. It's less confrontational and invites more people to be interested when it's not so obvious you're only speaking to D&D diehards.
I think you make a very good point at one point, though.
This is so good a point, you should get rid of your current introduction to the editorial RIGHT NOW and replace it with an introduction to this concept. This is the basis of your entire article. It's good. It takes you forever to get to it. Which means by the time someone reads it, they'll probably have become offended by the introductory ranting or otherwise not interested if they don't agree with you at the onset.